Deciding how a game either achieves or fails to display quality is somewhat dependent on the game style itself. Like apples and oranges (to beat a cliched analogy to death), we are dealing with fruit but each type can provide for a wholly different experience.
Take Real Time Strategy (RTS) games like Starcraft which are based upon the strategic prowess of the player. They must allow for complexity of action and thought but while also having a simple enough user interface to be cumbersome or frustrating to new players. The more you play an RTS, the greater your ability to use the controls, commands and basic understanding to further develop your “meta-game.” Especially in RTS's, there is a huge allowance for development of mind-to-mind gameplay; situations that are not just on screen, but firing away cerebrally. Many RTS games are likened to Chess - the originally perfect strategy game. And similarly to Chess, games like Starcraft emphasize both an understanding of positioning on the map (or board) as well as being able to think many steps ahead and in multiple directions. Starcraft is sometimes likened to Chess on speed.
Role Playing Games (RPG's) are a wholly different beast of gaming. The point of an RPG is to involve you in the game; and the more complete the involvement, the more successful the game. Critics who don't play video games themselves and look upon them as a societal hazard might mistakenly thing RPG-type games in particular as “mental masturbation.” But really what RPG's allow for is a similar feeling of immersion that you might get from your favorite book or film series. How many times have you wished to be a sword-wielding hero in an age of chivalry and dragons? You can read about exploits of history's champions, or you can take up the sword yourself and play the role.
Shooters (FPS), in general, tend to have a lower threshold of necessity for success. A shooter alone requires only the feedback mechanism of “I hit it, awesome” to generate the instant gratification it needs to be enjoyed. This of course would have a rather short lifespan because even “I hit it, awesome” can get old after a few hours. So shooters become more of a style that is then incorporated into other games (like RPG, puzzle, strategy and others). They become a function to a larger goal of the game rather than being the game itself (I don't care how many fond memories you have of Duck Hunter in your aunt's basement, it's not worth more than 30 min of your life). Games like Halo, despite the amount of shit it gets for its online play, actually does a great job of having a shooter that provides gratification while also involving you in a story and role that is pretty extensive. Shooters can then be said to only be successful when successfully incorporated into a different style of game.
I believe that covers some of the fundamentals of games we regularly see. Each type has nuances of their own but the basic rules are almost universal.
Deciding how a game either achieves or fails to display quality is somewhat dependent on the game style itself. Like apples and oranges (to beat a cliched analogy to death), we are dealing with fruit but each type can provide for a wholly different experience.
Take Real Time Strategy (RTS) games like Starcraft which are based upon the strategic prowess of the player. They must allow for complexity of action and thought but while also having a simple enough user interface to be cumbersome or frustrating to new players. The more you play an RTS, the greater your ability to use the controls, commands and basic understanding to further develop your “meta-game.” Especially in RTS's, there is a huge allowance for development of mind-to-mind gameplay; situations that are not just on screen, but firing away cerebrally. Many RTS games are likened to Chess - the originally perfect strategy game. And similarly to Chess, games like Starcraft emphasize both an understanding of positioning on the map (or board) as well as being able to think many steps ahead and in multiple directions. Starcraft is sometimes likened to Chess on speed.
Role Playing Games (RPG's) are a wholly different beast of gaming. The point of an RPG is to involve you in the game; and the more complete the involvement, the more successful the game. Critics who don't play video games themselves and look upon them as a societal hazard might mistakenly thing RPG-type games in particular as “mental masturbation.” But really what RPG's allow for is a similar feeling of immersion that you might get from your favorite book or film series. How many times have you wished to be a sword-wielding hero in an age of chivalry and dragons? You can read about exploits of history's champions, or you can take up the sword yourself and play the role.
Shooters (FPS), in general, tend to have a lower threshold of necessity for success. A shooter alone requires only the feedback mechanism of “I hit it, awesome” to generate the instant gratification it needs to be enjoyed. This of course would have a rather short lifespan because even “I hit it, awesome” can get old after a few hours. So shooters become more of a style that is then incorporated into other games (like RPG, puzzle, strategy and others). They become a function to a larger goal of the game rather than being the game itself (I don't care how many fond memories you have of Duck Hunter in your aunt's basement, it's not worth more than 30 min of your life). Games like Halo, despite the amount of shit it gets for its online play, actually does a great job of having a shooter that provides gratification while also involving you in a story and role that is pretty extensive. Shooters can then be said to only be successful when successfully incorporated into a different style of game.
I believe that covers some of the fundamentals of games we regularly see. Each type has nuances of their own but the basic rules are almost universal.